Article 142 – Power of Supreme Court to Review Its Own Judgment

Article 142 – Power of Supreme Court to Review Its Own Judgment

Article 142 of the Indian Constitution holds a unique place in the framework of Indian jurisprudence, empowering the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for “doing complete justice” in a case. Among its wide-ranging implications, the Court’s ability to review its own judgments stands out as a significant aspect of Article 142. This power reflects the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring justice even if it requires re-evaluating its own decisions. This article explores the scope, implications, and challenges associated with the Supreme Court’s power to review its judgments under Article 142.

Understanding Article 142

Article 142(1) of the Indian Constitution provides that the Supreme Court may pass such decrees or orders as are necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. This provision grants extraordinary powers to the apex court, enabling it to go beyond procedural limitations and technicalities to deliver substantive justice.

While Article 137 explicitly grants the Supreme Court the authority to review its own judgments or orders, Article 142 often serves as the constitutional basis for invoking this power in exceptional circumstances. Together, these provisions ensure that justice remains dynamic and adaptable to evolving needs.

Scope and Limitations of Review Powers

While Article 142 grants extensive powers to the Supreme Court, these powers are not unlimited. The Court has repeatedly emphasized that its review jurisdiction must be exercised within established constitutional boundaries. The power cannot be used to override explicit statutory provisions or fundamental rights. Additionally, the Court has stressed that review petitions must be based on concrete grounds rather than mere dissatisfaction with the original judgment. This self-imposed restraint ensures that the review mechanism remains an exceptional remedy rather than a routine appeal process.

Why Does the Supreme Court Review Its Own Judgments?

The concept of reviewing one’s own decisions stems from the principle that no authority is infallible. The Supreme Court may revisit its judgments for various reasons:

1. Rectification of Errors: If a judgment contains errors of fact or law, the Court may review it to rectify such mistakes.
2. New Evidence: Discovery of new, significant evidence that was not available during the original proceedings can warrant a review.
3. Miscarriage of Justice: When the implementation of a judgment leads to unintended consequences or injustice, the Court may intervene.
4. Public Interest: If societal needs or public interest demand reconsideration, the Court may exercise its review powers.

Procedure for Review

The Supreme Court’s power to review its own judgments is exercised under Article 137 and governed by the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Key procedural aspects include:

1. Filing of a Review Petition: Aggrieved parties must file a review petition within 30 days of the judgment, specifying grounds for review.
2. In-Chamber Proceedings: Review petitions are usually heard in-chamber by the same bench that delivered the original judgment. In rare cases, the Court may constitute a larger bench.
3. Limited Scope: The review process is not an appeal but a mechanism to address errors apparent on the face of the record.
4. Finality of Review: Once a review petition is decided, the scope for further reconsideration is highly restricted, except in exceptional circumstances.

Notable Cases Involving Review Under Article 142

Several landmark judgments have demonstrated the Supreme Court’s use of Article 142 to review its own decisions:

1. Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)

In this seminal case, the Supreme Court laid down the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution. While the Court did not directly review its judgment, subsequent cases revisited aspects of this doctrine to clarify its implications.

2. Aadhaar Judgment Review (2018)

After the Court’s judgment upholding the constitutional validity of Aadhaar, review petitions were filed challenging certain aspects of the ruling, particularly concerning privacy rights and data protection.

3. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002)

This case established the doctrine of curative petitions, allowing litigants to seek a review even after dismissal of review petitions, under exceptional circumstances, to prevent miscarriage of justice.

4. Sabarimala Temple Case (2018)

The judgment allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple faced significant public and legal opposition, leading to the filing of multiple review petitions. The Court referred the matter to a larger bench, highlighting the evolving societal and religious considerations.

Parameters for Exercise of Review Powers

The Supreme Court has developed specific parameters for exercising its review powers under Article 142. These include the presence of apparent errors on the face of the record, discovery of new and important evidence, or an error apparent affecting the basic nature of the case. The Court has emphasized that review jurisdiction cannot be exercised merely because a different view is possible or the Court might reconsider its previous position. In cases like Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013), the Court outlined specific grounds for review, including discovery of new evidence, error apparent on face of record, and other sufficient reasons. This framework helps maintain consistency and prevents arbitrary exercise of review powers.

Advantages of Review Under Article 142

1. Ensuring Justice

The power to review allows the Supreme Court to correct errors and address oversights, reinforcing its role as the custodian of justice.

2. Dynamic Jurisprudence

By revisiting its judgments, the Court ensures that its decisions remain relevant and aligned with societal progress and constitutional values.

3. Public Confidence

Acknowledging the possibility of error and rectifying mistakes enhances public trust in the judiciary’s integrity and accountability.

Challenges and Criticisms

Despite its advantages, the power to review under Article 142 is not without challenges:

1. Finality of Judgments

Frequent reviews may undermine the finality and certainty of Supreme Court judgments, leading to prolonged litigation.

2. Subjective Interpretation

The broad language of Article 142 gives the Court significant discretion, which may lead to subjective interpretations and inconsistencies in its application.

3. Delay in Justice

The review process can contribute to delays in the resolution of disputes, especially when contentious matters are referred to larger benches.

4. Misuse of Powers

Critics argue that the extraordinary powers under Article 142 should be exercised sparingly, as excessive intervention may encroach upon legislative or executive domains.

Impact on Constitutional Governance

The review power under Article 142 has significant implications for constitutional governance. While it serves as a crucial tool for ensuring justice, it also raises questions about the separation of powers and judicial overreach. Recent cases have shown how the Court’s review powers can influence policy decisions and legislative actions. This has led to debates about the extent to which the Court should use Article 142 to intervene in matters traditionally reserved for other branches of government. The challenge lies in maintaining a balance between judicial activism and restraint while exercising these extraordinary powers.

The Way Forward

To balance the need for justice and the principle of finality, certain measures can be considered:

1. Clear Guidelines: The Supreme Court can formulate guidelines for exercising review powers under Article 142 to ensure consistency and predictability.
2. Strengthening Procedural Safeguards: Enhancing procedural safeguards can prevent misuse and ensure that reviews are granted only in deserving cases.
3. Promoting Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Encouraging ADR mechanisms can reduce the burden on the judiciary and minimize the need for reviews.
4. Periodic Reassessment: The judiciary can periodically reassess its approach to Article 142 to adapt to changing societal and legal landscapes.

Conclusion

Article 142 exemplifies the Supreme Court’s role as the guardian of justice and the Constitution. By empowering the Court to review its own judgments, the provision ensures that justice remains dynamic and adaptable. However, the exercise of this power requires a delicate balance between rectifying errors and maintaining the finality of judgments. As the judiciary continues to evolve, the principles underlying Article 142 will remain pivotal in shaping India’s legal and constitutional framework.